The funny thing is all the SEC haters complaining about a rematch between Bama and LSU are the same one's clamoring for a playoff.

If there was a playoff, you'd still be seeing a rematch between LSU and Bama. They're the two best teams in the country by a wide margin. You can lump all the rest together and get 6 or 1/2 dozen of the other.

Like I said several weeks ago in another thread where everyone was whining about how unfair everything was... it'll all come out in the wash. The two best teams will play for the national championship.

The funny thing is all the SEC haters complaining about a rematch between Bama and LSU are the same one's clamoring for a playoff.

If there was a playoff, you'd still be seeing a rematch between LSU and Bama. They're the two best teams in the country by a wide margin. You can lump all the rest together and get 6 or 1/2 dozen of the other.

Like I said several weeks ago in another thread where everyone was whining about how unfair everything was... it'll all come out in the wash. The two best teams will play for the national championship.

Anything can Happen in a playoff setting. Anyone can lose at any given time, people wanna see the 10/8 best teams in the country get a chance at bringing it home. If it happens to be 2 SEC teams...so be it.

__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by 49erNation85

I wouldn't be sir prized if he passed McCoy on the depth chart. I think he might have a better arm and accurate arm then him from the highlights I thought. He also got some wheels too help us prepare for QB's as Wilson , RG3 and other runners etc.

Bama needs to focus on scoring a TD on someone other than Georgia state school of the blind before I turn on a rematch of most boring ******* game in the history of college football. Game of the century my ass

__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by 49erNation85

I wouldn't be sir prized if he passed McCoy on the depth chart. I think he might have a better arm and accurate arm then him from the highlights I thought. He also got some wheels too help us prepare for QB's as Wilson , RG3 and other runners etc.

Anything can Happen in a playoff setting. Anyone can lose at any given time, people wanna see the 10/8 best teams in the country get a chance at bringing it home. If it happens to be 2 SEC teams...so be it.

I've never been a huge fan of the BCS, but it usually always gets it right whether anyone agrees with the setup or not.

It's designed to get the 2 best teams in the country playing for the title, that's it. I can't think of more than 1, possibly 2 years in which it failed to do that, and even in those years it's extremely debateable as to whether or not it didn't get the 2 best teams matched up. (Undefeated Auburn left out in 2004, and Oregon left out in 2001)

The "fly in the ointment" crowd will always whine about Boise St. and clamor for a playoff because they know that's their only chance.

I'm fine with a playoff, because even though I think the results would be the same, at least nobody could complain about being left out. Other than a team or two complaining about being left out of the playoff scenario.

Bama needs to focus on scoring a TD on someone other than Georgia state school of the blind before I turn on a rematch of most boring ******* game in the history of college football. Game of the century my ass

Both Bama and LSU average around 40 PPG against everyone else, it's a different can o' worms when you have to play these two defenses.

Best advice I can give you is don't watch it if you don't want to see it. Turn on some college hoops instead. That's basically the type of football you're partial to anyway apparently.

If you can't see how historically great these two defenses are, you're better off watching some roundball anyway.

The funny thing is all the SEC haters complaining about a rematch between Bama and LSU are the same one's clamoring for a playoff.

If there was a playoff, you'd still be seeing a rematch between LSU and Bama. They're the two best teams in the country by a wide margin. You can lump all the rest together and get 6 or 1/2 dozen of the other.

Like I said several weeks ago in another thread where everyone was whining about how unfair everything was... it'll all come out in the wash. The two best teams will play for the national championship.

Two things. First, with a playoff, there is no guarantee that LSU and Alabama would play in the championship in a playoff. But if they did, I would be cool with that because they would have proven that they are the two best teams in the nation.

Second, what makes Alabama the second best team in the country. Kent State, North Texas, and Georgia Southern are terrible. Ole Miss and Tennessee are very bad. Florida, Auburn, Vanderbilt, and Mississippi State are average teams. Arkansas and Penn State are slightly above average. The only really good team they have played is LSU, and they lost.

The only thing an LSU-Alabama rematch will prove is who is the best team in the weakest SEC in the last 6 years.

Brilliant letting one of Scott Pioli's henchmen have his own team to ruin. One of the premier GM jobs in the NFL and it gets handed to a stupid **** who makes three facepalm moves for every good one. Awesome. Just like handing a new Mercedes to a 16 year old girl who's already been in three wrecks.

Two things. First, with a playoff, there is no guarantee that LSU and Alabama would play in the championship in a playoff. But if they did, I would be cool with that because they would have proven that they are the two best teams in the nation.

Second, what makes Alabama the second best team in the country. Kent State, North Texas, and Georgia Southern are terrible. Ole Miss and Tennessee are very bad. Florida, Auburn, Vanderbilt, and Mississippi State are average teams. Arkansas and Penn State are slightly above average. The only really good team they have played is LSU, and they lost.

The only thing an LSU-Alabama rematch will prove is who is the best team in the weakest SEC in the last 6 years.

I think it's fairly obvious you're either being stubborn, haven't watched Alabama play, or have no idea what a good football team looks like if you're having trouble with Alabama being one of the two best teams in the country.

I'm going to assume it's all three...

LSU blew out Oregon (the eventual Pac-12 champ) blew out WVU on the road... Alabama is the only team that can whip LSU and everybody knows it.

Arkansas is a top 5 team. If you get right down to it, Arkansas is essentially what Oklahoma and Oklahoma St. are... the cream of the Big-12 conference...but a good notch below Alabama and LSU in the SEC. Great quarterback, receivers, backs, offensive line, etc... capable of scoring a lot of points against run-of-the-mill teams, but simply can't stand up to the physicality of an Alabama or LSU. Same goes for Oklahoma or Oklahoma St.

Every single one of Alabama and LSU's common opponents (Arkansas, Ole Miss, Miss St., Florida, Tennessee, Auburn) were all beaten by almost identical scores by both Alabama and LSU. They were all dominated in the exact same fashion by Bama and LSU.

Bama can beat LSU. They moved the ball on LSU better than LSU could move the ball on them. A.J. McCarron passed for more yards on LSU's defense than every quarterback they've faced other than Geno Smith and Darron Thomas. All Bama needed was one of those 50 yard field goals to sneak through.

It's designed to get the 2 best teams in the country playing for the title, that's it. I can't think of more than 1, possibly 2 years in which it failed to do that, and even in those years it's extremely debateable as to whether or not it didn't get the 2 best teams matched up. (Undefeated Auburn left out in 2004, and Oregon left out in 2001)

In 1998, Florida State was 11-1 and went to the BCS Championship Game. Why not UCLA? Their only loss was at Miami in a game that was postponed due to a hurricane so it had to be played after their rivalry game with USC. Or Ohio State, who was number one all season, who beat four ranked teams that year and had just one loss?

In 2000, Florida State was again 11-1. They lost to Miami, who was also 11-1. Why not Miami? Or Washington, who was also 11-1 and beat Miami? Or Oregon State who was also 11-1?

You already mention 2001 and 2004. 2006 wasn't a huge controversy, but you could argue Michigan should have gone. 2007 had a two loss team go when there were a bunch of other 2 loss teams.

So in 12 years, there have been three big controversies and two smaller controversies. There will be another huge controversy this year. Getting it right without controversy 7 out of 13 times is not a good track record.

Quote:

As it stands currently, every week is a playoff if you ask me.

No it isn't. In a playoff, you lose you're out and if you keep on winning, you continue. In the BCS, you lose you're out. Unless of course you are in the SEC, then you can lose as much as you want. In the BCS, if you win every game you go to the Championship game. Unless of course you aren't in one of the Big Six conferences. In that case, you can go undefeated and be passed up by a two loss team.

Brilliant letting one of Scott Pioli's henchmen have his own team to ruin. One of the premier GM jobs in the NFL and it gets handed to a stupid **** who makes three facepalm moves for every good one. Awesome. Just like handing a new Mercedes to a 16 year old girl who's already been in three wrecks.

No they aren't. They barely beat Troy. They barely beat Texas A&M. They barely beat Ole Miss. They barely beat Vanderbilt. LSU and Alabama were the only two good teams they played and they got killed by both of them.

Brilliant letting one of Scott Pioli's henchmen have his own team to ruin. One of the premier GM jobs in the NFL and it gets handed to a stupid **** who makes three facepalm moves for every good one. Awesome. Just like handing a new Mercedes to a 16 year old girl who's already been in three wrecks.

I've never been a huge fan of the BCS, but it usually always gets it right whether anyone agrees with the setup or not.

It's designed to get the 2 best teams in the country playing for the title, that's it. I can't think of more than 1, possibly 2 years in which it failed to do that, and even in those years it's extremely debateable as to whether or not it didn't get the 2 best teams matched up. (Undefeated Auburn left out in 2004, and Oregon left out in 2001)

The "fly in the ointment" crowd will always whine about Boise St. and clamor for a playoff because they know that's their only chance.

I'm fine with a playoff, because even though I think the results would be the same, at least nobody could complain about being left out. Other than a team or two complaining about being left out of the playoff scenario.

As it stands currently, every week is a playoff if you ask me.

Meh, USC was the best team in the country in 04 and they got left out. The BCS is a joke, why is every single sport we have decided by a playoff but division 1 college football? Every other level of college football is as well. It just seems funny to me.

__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by 49erNation85

I wouldn't be sir prized if he passed McCoy on the depth chart. I think he might have a better arm and accurate arm then him from the highlights I thought. He also got some wheels too help us prepare for QB's as Wilson , RG3 and other runners etc.

No they aren't. They barely beat Troy. They barely beat Texas A&M. They barely beat Ole Miss. They barely beat Vanderbilt. LSU and Alabama were the only two good teams they played and they got killed by both of them.

In 1998, Florida State was 11-1 and went to the BCS Championship Game. Why not UCLA? Their only loss was at Miami in a game that was postponed due to a hurricane so it had to be played after their rivalry game with USC. Or Ohio State, who was number one all season, who beat four ranked teams that year and had just one loss?

In 2000, Florida State was again 11-1. They lost to Miami, who was also 11-1. Why not Miami? Or Washington, who was also 11-1 and beat Miami? Or Oregon State who was also 11-1?

You already mention 2001 and 2004. 2006 wasn't a huge controversy, but you could argue Michigan should have gone. 2007 had a two loss team go when there were a bunch of other 2 loss teams.

So in 12 years, there have been three big controversies and two smaller controversies. There will be another huge controversy this year. Getting it right without controversy 7 out of 13 times is not a good track record.

No it isn't. In a playoff, you lose you're out and if you keep on winning, you continue. In the BCS, you lose you're out. Unless of course you are in the SEC, then you can lose as much as you want. In the BCS, if you win every game you go to the Championship game. Unless of course you aren't in one of the Big Six conferences. In that case, you can go undefeated and be passed up by a two loss team.

Where will the huge controversy be this year? A 2 loss Oklahoma St. team if they lose to Oklahoma? A 1 loss Oklahoma St. team who lost to a 4 TD underdog?

A 2 loss Oregon team? A 2 loss Oklahoma team? A 1 loss team from the MWC? Get real.

We've already had rematches in the national championship game before the BCS came along, it has nothing to do with it.

The only place there's controversy is in the heads of SEC haters. Not in any of the polls, computers, or anyone who subscribes to the notion that the two best teams in the country should be playing for the national title.